Effectiveness of Bilingual EducationBret HartProfessor Tanesha.docx

Effectiveness of Bilingual Education
Bret Hart
Professor Tanesha. Thomas
SBCC
Table of Content
Ⅰ. Introduction
Ⅱ. Literature Review
Ⅲ. Methods
Ⅳ. Analysis
Ⅴ. Discussion
Ⅵ. Reference Cited
Ⅶ. Appendices

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of
bilingual education on bilingual student’s academic
performance in comparison to bilingual students who do not
receive bilingual education. In order to do this study 120
Chinese and Spanish bilingual students, their academic
performances will be observed through the course of one year.
Throughout the year I will be collecting notes on how the
students are doing in their in-class assignments, in-class
quizzes, and tests, how well they comprehend the work, and
how well is the communication between the teacher and
students, and finally how well they scored on their state tests.
Other measurements that will be incorporated are survey
responses as additional information to support the study.
Key Terms
Bilingual Education, Bilingual Students, Academic
performance, NYC State Test Results
Ⅰ. Introduction
In the U.S. we have many immigrants as of right now and
maybe more coming in the country. Often these immigrants are
families with children and many of the times neither the parents
nor the children know little to no English and it can be difficult
for the children to adjust and transition into a new culture and
learn the language. Providing bilingual education is very
important for bilingual students because they then can receive a
smooth and equal opportunity at Education. This research is
unique, crucial and interesting because we are not only
exploring children of different ethnicity, culture, and language
but also because we will be able to look at how well they learn
if given the proper resources. In doing this experimental
research both qualitative and quantitative research method
seems to be suitable because although looking at test scores and
survey results which are quantitative measures will possibly

allow me to support my hypothesis it is important to see how
the children learn on a daily basis for which I will have to
observe them in their learning environment.
Ⅱ. Literature Review
Many researchers have found that
Bilingual Education is beneficial for Bilingual students and
some researchers have found that it may not make a significant
difference in academic achievement. Fernie Baca Moore and
Gerald D. Parr research compared effectiveness of three
different Bilingual programs which were transitional,
maintenance, minimal and a nonbilingual program. Overall they
have found that bilingual programs do not make a significant
difference in their Hispanic student's academic achievement in
terms testing scores (1978). In contrast, Moore and Parr have
also found that maintenance programs which offer 50% of the
class instruction in Spanish scored significantly higher than the
students in a transitional program which offers Spanish only
when absolutely needed (1978). Therefore Moore and Parr’s
findings partially support my hypothesis that bilingual
education does allow students to succeed academically
especially if students native language is used the majority of the
time. Similar to Moore and Parr Perry A. Zirkel did research on
bilingual education and the purpose of his research was to
assess different models of bilingual education. Zirkel’s research
suggests that bilingual education is an effective way to teach
Spanish-speaking bilingual students especially if it is they are
instructed in native language majority of the time “bilingual
programs in two of the cities which provided a major part of the
instructional day in Spanish … were found to have generally
positive results in comparison to the regular all-English
instructional program” (1975). Zirkel’s research not only
supports my proposed research but the methods that he used are
ones that I will be incorporating in my research such as having
an experimental group and control group. Gary A. Cziko
research reveals that students in the late exit program in which
substantial part of the instruction is in the native language and

slowly introduced to English showed noticeable academic
growth than those who are not a part of the program similar to
Moore and Parr’s findings on maintenance program (1992).
Cziko found that bilingual programs that give more importance
to the native language have students that are at the same level
of academic achievement as their monolingual peers (1992).
Therefore Cziko findings appear to be supportive of my
hypothesis. Although Marry B.
Harris and Santiago Jim Stockton’s research is about bilingual
education it is slightly different than the other research studies
that were previously mentioned because Harris and Stockton do
not mention any specific type of bilingual program and their
focus is on physical education instruction. In their research, the
participants were a mix of Spanish-speaking and non-Spanish-
speaking elementary students who were divided into 2 sections
a monolingual and bilingual section. Harris and Stockton used
both tests scores and anecdotal evidence to express some of
their findings. Harris and Stockton looked at the test scores on
technical athletic vocabulary and it revealed that “bilingually
taught children had higher scores than those monolingually
taught” (1973). One of the student’s attitude and participation
improved significantly and expressed that it was because she
understood better in Spanish. This directly relates to my
proposal because it supports my hypothesis that bilingual
education helps bilingual students comprehend their tasks
better. Melisa Cahnmann's research on
bilingual education is a lot different from the rest of the
researchers because she did an ethnography which consisted of
a lot of hours of observations, note-taking, and recording which
I intend to incorporate in my research method. Cahnmann’s
purpose was to express that bilingual education goes beyond
just translating the English language to the student’s native
language it is also finding mediums to teach bilingual students
that they can relate to (2005). Cahnmann observed Ms.Maria
who is a bilingual teacher not just merely translate instructions
and what other monolingual teachers wanted to communicate

but she used words that the students can relate to. Ms.Maria’s
technique of inviting monolingual teachers to try to
communicate with the bilingual students using whatever
knowledge they had in Spanish allowed both students and the
teacher to learn each other’s language without just simply
translating. Cahnmann findings express that bilingual education
can be effective if teachers find ways to communicate with their
students that are better suited for their specific group of
students, for example, Ms.Maria used Spanish vocabulary her
students would understand and can relate to (2005).
In the majority of
the bilingual education studies that I have discussed the
researchers used test score to determine if bilingual education
was effective or not and one researcher who used observations.
I intend to use both test scores and observations for my
research. Overall most of these research studies express how
bilingual education is an effective way to teach bilingual
students in some way especially if the programs prioritize the
student’s native language. Moore and Parr, Zirkel, and Cziko’s
findings are the most effective in demonstrating that bilingual
education is an effective way of teaching bilingual students and
how it is an effective way.
Ⅲ. Method
A. Participants
Stratified random sampling will be used to gather the samples
for this study which will be 120 bilingual students of
elementary school from the borough of Manhattan and the
Bronx. There will be 30 Chinese bilingual students from Yung
Wing Elementary School P.S. M124 a non-bilingual school, and
30 Chinese students from a Chinese bilingual school P.S. M020
Anna Silver. Then 60 students from the Bronx, out of those
sixty Spanish speaking students thirty will be from P.S. X085
The Great Expectation a non-bilingual school then 30 thirty
Spanish speaking students from P.S. X161 Ponce De Leon a
bilingual school. The majority of the population is Asian, in the
neighborhood where P.S. M124. Also, the majority of the

population in the neighborhood of P.S. M020 is mixed races but
Asian population alone is more than any other race population
alone. As for the two schools in the Bronx P.S. X085 and P.S.
X161 are both in neighborhoods of which majority of the
population is Hispanic.
B. Instrumentation and Procedure
The primary instrumentation for this study would be NYC state
English Language Arts and Math test. ELA test consists of three
components one section is multiple choice questions based on a
reading passage that test comprehension of the story, the second
part is a short answer question based on another reading passage
that test critical thinking, the final part is a short essay on
another reading passage. Overall the ELA exams test the
students on their reading and writing skills. The Math also
consists of multiple choice section and short answer questions
in which the students are required to show how they got their
answers. Overall the Math exam tests how well they
comprehend math units, the math word problems, and if they are
strategically able to come up with the correct answer.
Other secondary
instrumentation would be surveys, in class assignments, and in-
class test. The beginning of the school year the teachers will be
given survey questionnaire regarding their perspective on
bilingual education. The students will be given a pre-test using
NYC state practice test in the very beginning of the school year
to see what they know and do not know, and to see how well
they do before the treatments. During the school year, I will be
observing and examining academic performances of both the
treatment group that will be receiving bilingual education and
control group that will not be receiving bilingual education, by
looking at their activities, responses, and results of in-class
assignment and test. My focus is going to be on how responsive
the students are when they are asked questions and directed to
do activities in English during my observations and how well

they comprehend the directions. In order to see how responsive
they are, I will note whether or not they are answering verbal
questions accurately and if they are asking relevant questions to
the teacher. I want to see if the students are learning new
English vocabulary and applying them to sentences when they
speak or write. I will also look at whether they are trying to
communicate with each other and the teachers and how well
they get their message across in English throughout the months.
At the end of the year, they will also take the NYC state test
and the results from those tests will be recorded.
To ensure there are no issues before starting this study I
will be sending out letters to the district administrators, and
also the parents of the students for permission. I also suspect
minimal ethical issues in my experiment because I’ am not
actually administering any treatment, my instrumentation and
treatments are what the students are already normally expected
to do in a school year. As for confidentiality, all the
participants will be given pseudonyms if they are going to be
discussed in the report.
Ⅳ. Analysis
Both qualitative and quantitative analysis will be done when
reporting the results of the experiment. After the completion of
the year, all the notes from the observation will be reported.
Patterns such as increase or decrease in participation of the
students will be taken into consideration from both the
treatment and control group. Other patterns that will be looked
at of both the treatment and control group are whether grades of
assignments are decreasing or increasing. Also, the results from
the surveys the teachers were given will be converted to a pie
chart that will allow us to interpret what percentage of the
teachers think that bilingual education is effective versus how
many think it is not. At the end of the year, the results of the
state tests will also be taken into account. The scores of both
the treatment group and control group will be reflected on a line

graph which will give us a visual of the difference between
students who received bilingual education and those who did
not.
V. Discussion
I expect to find that bilingual education will aid bilingual
students to comprehend their task better allowing them to
complete their task successfully which will result in good
academic performance. Based on previous research I expect to
find that bilingual education is an effective way of teaching
when the student’s primary language is prioritized to teach the
students. This research will lend reasons to support bilingual
education and possible funding towards bilingual education.
This research is also important because of the current political
condition in the country. Throughout the end of 2016 to now, it
has been particularly hard for immigrants in this country
because they have been targeted by Trump and his
administration. Bilingual education is particularly important
now more than ever because we need to educate our immigrant
members of the country so they know their rights, can fight
back, and take advantage of resources that are available for
them to use. In order for immigrants to take full advantage of
resources, it is important for them to comprehend English at
least to some degree and bilingual education will make that
possible even if it may only be immigrant children. If we
provide bilingual education to the children of immigrants we are
essentially strengthening current and future immigrant
community.
Limitations of the study may include the
funding, resources, and staff availability to do this study.
Although I include bilingual students of two different
ethnicities, 120 students may be a small sample size to represent
all bilingual students. Therefore further research may need to be
done to represent the general k-5 bilingual student population.

References
Moore, Fernie Baca., Gerald D. Parr. 1978. “Models of
Bilingual Education: Comparison of Effectiveness.”
The Elementary School Journal 79(3):93-97.
Zirkel, Perry A. 1975. “Bilingual Education Programs At The
Elementary School Level: Their Identification”.
Bilingual Review. 2(1/2):13-21.
Cziko, Gary A. 1992. “The Evaluation of Bilingual Education:
From Necessity and Probability to Possibility” Educational
Research. 21(2):10-15.
Harris, Marry B. Santiago Jim Stockton. 1973. “A Comparison
of Bilingual and Monolingual Physical Education Instruction
with Elementary School Students”. The Journal of Educational
Research. 67(2):53-54.
Cahnmann, Melisa.2005. “Translating Competence in a Critical
Bilingual Classroom.”Anthropology
& Education Quarterly 36(3):230-249.
Appendices
Timeline:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fhIKTrSe2qK0WYe74t
eWQa0nqzGWjEF5HBSJ1bg6m-E/edit?usp=sharing
Survey Questionnaire:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1WOVDUoNlEWkOAMmA3m
NXmWkxtJ12lZKM-fSzEMcokEo/edit?usp=sharing
Budget:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hkbYN6kZMfM_s8vBt
K7Sq8N0yn2spNBbT3NQW4S1K6Y/edit?usp=sharing

Consent Form:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZRldwiD4Z9RC-
0AcbtH3KX75llDxFLokLFz18Ka9twY/edit?usp=sharing
Harvard Business School 9-297-052
Rev. July 12, 1997
Research Associate Tara L. Nells prepared this case under the
supervision of Professor Benjamin C. Esty as the basis for
class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or
ineffective handling of an administrative situation. The case
was
prepared solely on the basis of public information without USG
Corporation’s participation.
Copyright © 1996 by the President and Fellows of Harvard
College. To order copies or request permission to
reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685 or write Harvard
Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163. No
part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in
any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the
permi ssion of Harvard Business School.
1
USG Corporation
On May 2, 1988, USG Corporation, the world's largest gypsum
producer, announced that the

board of directors had approved a recapitalization plan.
According to the plan, USG would exchange
each outstanding share of common stock for $37.00 in cash,
$5.00 in stated face amount of 16% junior
subordinated pay-in-kind debentures, and one share in the newly
recapitalized company. Robert
Day, USG ’s Chairman and CEO, said the plan "is consistent
with our commitment to maximize value
for the shareholders while at the same time leaving them with
an ongoing equity stake."1 On the day
of the announcement, the stock price closed at $41.50 , up
$0.50. Before the board could implement
the recapitalization, shareholders would have to approve it at a
special meeting on July 8, 1988.
The recapitalization , however, was not the only option
available to shareholders . Desert
Partners, a Texas-based takeover group, had an outstand ing
tender offer for $42.00 per share in cash
due to expire on June 10, 1988. In a publicly disclosed letter to
the board, they had indicated a
willingness to increase their offer to $50.00 per share in cash,
debt, and stock, but had not officially
changed their tender offer. Prior to the expiration of the tender
offer, shareholders had to decide
whether to tender their shares to Desert Partners or wait and
vote for the proposed leveraged
recapitalization plan in July.
Company History
In 1901, thirty-five gypsum companies consolidated to form the
USG Company. The
resulting entity controlled 50% of the highly competitive and
price-sensitive gyp sum market. Due to
its size, USG had scale advantages in manufacturing and

transportation which kept its costs low and
helped it survive the Depression . Since its creation, USG had
been a vertically integrated company
with a commitment to product diversification. It grew steadily
from the 1940s through the 1980s by
expanding existing businesses and acquiring new businesses
For example, USG acquired M asonite
Corporation, a manufacturer of wood building products, in May
1984 to expand its product line.
Overview of Current Businesses
USG manufactured a diverse group of building materials for
residential construction (36% of
sales), nonresidential construction (29% of sales) , building
repair and remodeling (25% of sales), and
industrial processes (10% of sales). It was vertically integrated
and geographically dispersed
controlling mines, quarries, transport ships and manufacturing
plants in North America, Europe,
1 Anonymous, “USG Board Announces Recapitalization,
Restructuring,” PR Newswire, May 3, 1988.
297-052 USG Corporation
2
Mexico, and other countries. Despite the foreign operations,
90% of the company’s sales were in the
United States and Canada. Exhibit 1 gives historical data on
the building products industry and the
gypsum market.

USG divided its operations into four divisions: gypsum,
interior systems, wood fiber and
other products. The four divisions shared several
characteristics: they had strong positions in their
primary markets, typically first or second; led in technology,
design, and innovation; were low-cost
producers; had multiple plant locations and geographic
coverage; and were highly integrated. 2
Gypsum United States Gypsum Company was the world's
largest manufacturer of gypsum
products. Each year the company mined over eight million tons
of gypsum and used it primarily to
produce wallboard, baseboard, and “sheetrock” (USG’s
trademark product name), the plasterlike
material s used to construct ceilings and walls . Besides being
the raw material for construction
materials, gypsum was also used in road repair, ceramics , and
even as a calcium supplement for
McDonald's hamburger buns. As of 1987, the company had
more than 30 years of proven gypsum
reserves.
In 1987, US Gypsum was market leader as it had been for
decades. It was the largest of 16
domestic producers and controlled one-third of the domestic
market, a market where firms competed
on price, quality, and service. Currently, gypsum sales
accounted for 51% of USG Corporation’s total
sales though the division was set to expand as it had increased
capacity by 893 million square feet
over the past five years by constructing five new plants.
Interior systems Established in 1986, USG Interiors, Inc. was
the largest domestic producer of

integrated interior systems. It provided ceiling, wall, and floor
systems for office, retail and
commercial spaces. The company supplied not only the
products, but systems for solving interior
spacing projects. It distinguished itself from competitors by
possessing the largest variety of
products and coordinating them into an overall system. USG
also attributed its success to its effective
marketing, sales , and distribution. Although its market share
varied according to the product, it
controlled 35% of the market for acoustical ceiling tile, 50% of
the market for ceiling grid suspension
systems, and 19% of the market for floor access systems.
Wood fiber Masonite Corporation was one of the world's
largest manufacturers of wood fiber
products including hardboard siding, roofing, and paneling. It
produced and marketed a wide
variety of products through three units: Hardboard Group,
Wood Fiber Industries , and Furniture
Components Group. Masonite invented the process for
hardboard over fifty years ago and continued
to be innovative with its recently developed successful line of
molded door facings. In 1987, it was
the domestic market leader with 33% of the exterior hardwood
siding market.
Other products USG Industries supplied building products to
the repair and remodeling mark et
through three business units: Kinkead Division, DAP Inc., and
Durabond Division. The Kinkead
Division was the nation's largest manufacturer of bathtub and
shower enclosures. In 1987, it
introduced a steam shower and a new line of bath products
which resulted in a 19% increase in unit
sales. USG acquired the second unit, DAP Inc., in 1987. It

produced caulks, glazing and sealing
compounds, wood preservatives, and specialty paints. Over
70% of its sales were to the repair and
remodel market. And finally, the Durabond Division produced
adhesives, mortars and grouts.
2 USG Corporation, 1987 Annual Report, p. 4.
USG Corporation 297-052
3
Current Events at USG
In 1985 , former CEO Edward Duffy began a major
restructuring program beginning with a
reorganization into four divisions under the USG holdi ng
company. T he restructuring was not a
reaction to negative performance, as sales and earnings were at
record level s in 1984, but rather a
continuation of USG’s long-term decentralization program and
an attempt to get each subsidiary to
focus on growth opportunities within their specific markets.
When Duffy retired in June 1985, then
President Robert Day became CEO and took responsibility for
implementing the program.
As part of the restructuring, USG closed several plants,
eliminated overhead positions, and
divested several unprofitable businesses. Management
expected these steps to generate $23 million
in annual cost savings by 1988. At the same time, t he company
invested aggressively to improve

efficiency and expand capacity at USG's plants. It also
announced plans to repurchase 20% of the
outstanding common stock because, in management’s view, the
stock was undervalued.3
Following the implementation of the restructuring program,
USG posted record profits in
1985 and 1986. During this period, its stock price outperformed
both the S&P 500 and the S&P
Building Products Index. By the end of 1986, USG had
repurchased almost the full 20% of its stock.
Although analysts praised the company’s performance, insiders
reaped little in the way of financial
rewards as they collectively owned only 1.4% of the common
stock. They did, however, hold options
on another 980,000 shares.
Earnings dipped slightly in 1987: USG earned $204 million on
$2.9 billion in sales down from
$226 million on $2.8 billion in sales the year before. (Exhibits
2 , 3, and 4 present historical income
statements, balance sheets, and divisional operating results .)
Nevertheless, its return on equity,
measured on end of year equity, stood at 34%, almost twice the
average for comparable building
products companies. In fact, its return on equity placed it
seventh on the Fortune 500 listing of
profitability and fourteenth on the list in terms of 10-year EPS
growth. At the annual meeting in May
1987, Day boasted that the stock price was up nearly fivefold
over the past decade and the dividend
had increased 87% over the past five years. 4 Management
attributed much of the success to increased
focus on their core building product business: its share of sales
from building products increased
from 79% in 1985 to over 90% in 1987. Although analysts were

expecting strong earnings into the
future, they were projecting a slight decline in 1988 earnings
per share from $3.96 to $3.46, some of
which was attributable to restructuring expenses.
Management raised one concern in the 1987 Annual Report
which was lawsuits stemming
from asbestos-related products . The company had been
charged a total of $956 ,000 in three separate
cases all of which were currently under appeal . To cover
potential liability stemming from future
lawsuits, USG purchased additional liability in surance.
Management believed that current and
future asbestos litigation would not have a "material adverse
affect on the company's operations."5
Recent Takeover Attempts
Beginning in 1986, the building products industry became a
hotbed for takeover activity . In
January , Amsted Industries announced a leverage d buyout
after Houston investor Charles Hurwitz
made a hostile tender offer . In April 1986, California-based
Wickes Corporation made the first of two
tender offers for building products companies. First, they bid
$1.2 billion for National Gypsum
which, like Amsted Industries, fought back with a leveraged
buyout; second, they bid $2.2 billion for
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation which countered with a
leveraged recapitalization plan.
4 Matt O’Connor, “Texans Drilling New Well at USG,” Chicago
Tribune , October 11, 1987, p. 1.

4
As the leading company in the industry, USG was not immune
to the takeover activity . In
November 1986, three Canadian brothers, Samuel, William, and
Hyman Belzberg, announced they
owned just under 5% of USG’s stock. Although t he Belzbergs
we re notorious for taking toe-hold
positions in firms and seeking greenmail, they did, on occasion,
actually follow through and acquire
firms. After initially trying to rebuff the Belzbergs, USG
eventually agreed to buy back their 3.1
million shares for $45.00 per share. On the day USG announced
this deal, its stock price fell $1.87 to
close at $43.00 per share. USG spokesman Paul Collitti said
“We definitely would not call it
greenmail . . . USG paid the price that prevailed on the New
York Stock Exchange . . . the day the deal
was consummated.”6 The Belzbergs netted over $35 million
from the transaction. 7
But the interest in USG did not subside. Analysts agreed that
"it s steady cash flow, low-cost
production lines, and commanding market share deemed it a
desirable company."8 According to
Lawrence Horan, an analyst at Smith Barney, "It's been one of
the most attractive targets on the
street."9 On October 5, 1987, an investor group named Desert
Partners announced that it controlled
9.83% of the company. USG’s stock closed up $3.00 at $54.50
that day even though there had been

rumors for weeks that someone was acquiring shares . In
response to the announcement, one USG
executive publicly stated that USG had no intention of
participating in any deal with Desert Partners.
Desert Partners, an investment partnership formed by Texas
oilmen Jack Brown and Cyril
Wagner, was an experienced takeover firm having made several
attempted acquisitions over the past
few years. After acquiring sizable positions in target firms,
they often agreed to sell their shares back
to the company for a profit. For example, they made $50
million in December 1986 by selling shares
back to Lear Siegler and another $77 million in April 1987 from
GenCorp.
The group had been acquiring shares since August and intended
to gain all, or at least a
controlling portion, of USG which they saw as undervalued.
They had paid an average of $40.00
dollars per share for their shares and were expected to offer
significantly more to acquire USG.
Jonathan Goldfarb, an analyst at Merrill Lynch , concluded that
based on cash flow, an acquirer might
pay a price in the $60's for USG.10 However, three weeks after
Desert Partners announced their
holdings, the stock market crashed and USG fell to a low of
$26.50 per share creating a sizable paper
loss for the investors. In response, they quickly shelved any
thoughts of a takeover.
Over the next several months, USG’s stock steadily climbed
back to the high $30s. On March
1st, Desert Partners announced a tender offer to purchase up
21.5 million shares at price of $42.00 per
share in cash . The offer was contingent on the removal of

USG’s "poison pill" anti-takeover plan
which the board had approved in early 1986. USG closed at
$40.13 that day, up $2.75 on a day the
S&P 500 was flat.
After USG’s board announced the tender offer was not in t he
best interest of the Company
and recommended that shareholders not tender their shares ,
Desert Partners upped the ante by
announcing a proxy contest for the upcoming annual meeting.
Desert Partners would run a slate of
six new directors hoping shareholders would replace the
existing ones. Again , USG encouraged
shareholders to vote for the existing directors as the election of
the opposing slate was not in the
Company’s best interest . "Management is the most qualified to
deliver to shareholders the long term
value inherent in the corporation and would at the same time be
sensitive to the needs of employees,
customers and the communities in which it operates, as well as
other corporate constituencies." 11
Exhibit 5 shows USG’s stock price over this period.
6 Robert J. Bennett, “USG Buys Belzbergs’ Shares,” The New
York Times , December 4, 1986, p. D1.
7 Cal Mankowski, “USG Seen by Analysts as Tempting
Takeover Target,” Reuters, October 6, 1987.
8 ibid .
9 ibid .
10 ibid .
11 Anonymous, “USG Board Announces Recapitalization,
Restructuring,” PR Newswire, May 3, 1988.

5
Recapitalization Proposal
Given the recent takeover attempts, USG’s board debated a
number of alternatives. They
considered repurchasing additional stock, selling equity to a
friendly third party, selling the entire
company to a friendly acquirer, and completing a leveraged
recapitalization. 12 According to market
rumors, U.K.-based BPB Industries was a possible "white
knight. " Analysts saw it as a possible
acquirer because the chairmen sat on each other’s boards.
After debating each of the options, the board decided to proceed
with a leveraged
recapitalization and announced the plan on May 2, 1988. They
described the plan as “an alternative
to an unsolicited, coercive and inad equate tender offer." 13 It
was “ in tended to provide...shareholders
with a significant distribution of cash and securities and permit
them to retain their proportionate
long-term equity interest in the Company."14 The next day the
stock closed at $44.63, up $3.13.
According to the plan, shareholders would receive $37.00 in
cash, $5.00 in stated face amount
of new 16% junior subordinated pay-in-kind debentures due
2008, and one share in the newly
recapitalized company for each existing common share. To
finance the deal, USG had to raise
approximately $2.5 billion which would come from one of three
sources (see Exhibit 6a ). Citibank,
Bankers Trust, and Chemical Bank would coordinate a group of

banks to provide $1.6 billion of bank
financing and an additional $200 million of revolving credit if it
were needed. These loans would be
repaid over the next nine years, with $700 million due in the
first two years (see Exhibit 6b). Because
many of the loans had variable rates, the banks required USG to
lock in fixed rates using swaps, caps,
or other instruments for a period of four years for 75% of the
principal. In addition, USG planned to
issue $600 million of senior subordinated debentures . The
debentures would have a 12-year maturity
and carry a rate of approximately 14%. Finally, USG would
issue $259 million of junior subordinated
debentures directly to current shareholders. The junior
subordinated debentures were pay-in-kind
securities with a rate of 16% and a 20-year maturity. For the
first five years, the company could either
pay cash or issue additional debentures to cover interest
payments. After raising this debt and
paying the cash dividend, USG would show a negative book
value of $1.57 billion, equal to negative
$29.06 per share compared to a positive book value of $13.00
per share in June 1988.
Goldman Sachs and Salomo n Brothers advised USG on
evaluating Desert Partner’s tender
offer, which they said was inadequate, and in developing the
recapitalization plan. In formulating
the plan , they relied on financial projections, comparable
transactions, and trading multiples, all in
the context of the current interest rate environment (see
Exhibits 7, 8a, 8b, and 9 ). Total fees for the
deal related to advisory work and debt issuance were expected
to be $71.2 million.
Besides the financial aspects of the deal, the board also

highlighted some of the operating
changes associated with the recapitalization. They would install
a new performance incentive plan
for about 215 senior managers and amend the current benefits
and stock option plans. They also
proposed selling three subsidiaries (Masonite in the Wood Fiber
division , Kinkead in the Other
Products division, and Marlite in the Interior Systems division)
which was expected to generate $519
million after taxes. Collectively, these subsidiaries had $627
million in sales and generated $56
million in operating profit. As part of this restructuring, the
company would discontinue any
products and distribution channels that failed to pass certain
stricter investment criteria. And finally,
they would reduce capital expenditures by up to $100 million
per year and operating expenses by $ 70
million per year. Most of the operating savings would come
from layoffs and early retirement.
12 Anonymous, “USG Will Continue to Explore Alternatives,”
Reuters Financial Service, April 13, 1988.
13 Anonymous, “USG Has Anti-takeover Restructuring Plan,”
Reuters Financial Service , May 2, 1988.
14 USG Corporation, Prospectus, July 7, 1988.
6
Some analysts suggested that the proposed recapitalization
would burden the company with
debt, forcing it to sell profitable business units. 15 Day

countered this criticism by saying that
"Because each USG company is a market leader, USG is well
positioned to manage operations with a
more leveraged balance sheet." 16 To bolster his point, USG
hired American Appraisal Capital
Services, Inc. to review the proposed transaction. Their opinion
stated that the fair salable value of
the company’s assets would exceed the company’s stated
liabilities, that the company would be able
to pay its obligations as they became due, and that the company
would not have an unreasonably
small capital base to conduct business after the
recapitalization.17
Conclusion
On May 4th, Desert Partners sent a letter to USG’s board
proposing a two-tiered transaction
in which they would pay $50.00 per share in cash for 72% of the
shares, and subordinated pay-in-
kind debentures and new common stock for the remaining 28%
of the shares. Although they
proposed this transaction, Desert Partners did not amend its
tender offer which meant that its cash
offer of $42.00 per share remained the only official offer. Once
again, Day emphatically rejected the
proposed offer. He said, “Let us make it clear. The company is
not for sale.”18
At the annual meeting, shareholders voted on the competing
board slates. Two weeks later,
on May 28, 1988, USG announced its slate of directors had won
by a margin of 56% to 41 % (with 3%
abstaining). Following the proxy contest, there was speculation
on what Desert Partners might do
next. They had indicated a willingness to increase their bid, but

had been rejected by management
and had lost the proxy contest. With only one week remaining
before Desert Partners’ tender offer
expired, shareholders had to decide whether to tender their
shares or wait and vote for the proposed
restructuring at the special meeting in July 8th.
15 Julie Siler, “USG Claims Victory in Desert Proxy Fight,”
The N ew York Times, May 12, 1988, p. 5.
16 Liz Sly, Chicago Tribune, July 9, 1988, p. 6.
17 USG Corporation, Prospectus, July 7, 1988, p. 16.
18 Anonymous, “USG Rejects Desert Partners Latest Offer,”
Reuters Financial Service , May 4, 1988.
297-052 -7-
Exhibit 1 Building Industry Statistics
Construction Data Gypsum Industry Data
Residential Average
Expenditures New New Price/Ton
U.S. on Maintenance Residential Nonresidential U.S. U.S. for
Crude
Housing Repairs, and Construction Construction Shipments
Capacity Gypsum- Average
Starts Improvements Put in Place Put in Place of Gypsum of
Gypsum (FOB mine*) Prime
Y e a r (thousands) ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions)
(billion sq. ft.) (billion sq. ft.) (dollars) Rate

1 9 6 8 1 , 5 0 7 . 6 $ 1 2 , 7 0 3 $ 3 4 , 1 7 2 $ 2 3 , 8 1 1 9 . 5
5 n / a n / a 6 . 3 1 %
1 9 6 9 1 , 4 6 6 . 8 1 3 , 5 3 4 3 7 , 2 1 4 2 7 , 7 4 1 1 0 . 2 8 n /
a n / a 7 . 9 6
1 9 7 0 1 , 4 3 3 . 6 1 4 , 7 7 0 3 5 , 8 6 3 2 8 , 1 7 1 9 . 7 4 n / a
n / a 7 . 9 1
1 9 7 1 2 , 0 5 2 . 2 1 6 , 3 0 0 4 8 , 5 1 4 2 9 , 3 0 7 1 1 . 9 4 n /
a n / a 5 . 7 2
1 9 7 2 2 , 3 5 6 . 6 1 7 , 4 9 8 6 0 , 6 9 3 3 2 , 3 7 5 1 4 . 3 7 n /
a n / a 5 . 2 5
1 9 7 3 2 , 0 4 5 . 3 1 8 , 5 1 2 6 5 , 0 8 5 3 7 , 6 3 9 1 5 . 1 5 n /
a $ 4 . 1 8 8 . 0 3
1 9 7 4 1 , 3 3 7 . 7 2 1 , 1 1 3 5 5 , 9 6 7 3 9 , 8 8 9 1 2 . 9 1 n /
a 4 . 4 1 1 0 . 8 1
1 9 7 5 1 , 1 6 0 . 4 2 5 , 2 3 9 5 1 , 5 8 1 3 5 , 4 0 9 1 0 . 7 4 n /
a 4 . 5 8 7 . 8 6
1 9 7 6 1 , 5 3 7 . 5 2 9 , 0 3 5 6 8 , 2 7 3 3 4 , 6 2 8 1 3 . 1 2 n /
a 5 . 0 0 6 . 8 4
1 9 7 7 1 , 9 8 7 . 1 3 1 , 2 8 0 9 2 , 0 0 4 3 8 , 2 4 5 1 5 . 3 7 1 6
. 5 0 5 . 5 5 6 . 8 3
1 9 7 8 2 , 0 2 0 . 3 3 7 , 4 6 1 1 0 9 , 8 3 8 4 8 , 8 2 4 1 6 . 4 1 1
7 . 0 0 6 . 2 3 9 . 0 6
1 9 7 9 1 , 7 4 5 . 1 4 2 , 2 3 1 1 1 6 , 4 4 4 6 4 , 7 6 5 1 6 . 7 4 1
7 . 5 0 6 . 8 3 1 2 . 6 7

1 9 8 0 1 , 2 9 2 . 2 4 6 , 3 3 8 1 0 0 , 3 8 1 7 2 , 4 8 0 1 4 . 1 3 1
8 . 2 5 8 . 3 3 1 5 . 2 7
1 9 8 1 1 , 0 8 4 . 2 4 6 , 3 5 1 9 9 , 2 4 1 8 5 , 5 6 9 1 3 . 7 6 1 8
. 6 7 8 . 5 3 1 8 . 8 7
1 9 8 2 1 , 0 6 2 . 2 4 5 , 2 9 1 8 4 , 6 7 6 9 2 , 6 9 0 1 3 . 0 9 1 9
. 1 4 8 . 4 6 1 4 . 8 4
1 9 8 3 1 , 7 0 3 . 0 4 9 , 2 9 5 1 2 5 , 5 2 1 8 7 , 0 6 9 1 6 . 8 2 1
8 . 5 0 7 . 8 7 1 0 . 7 9
1 9 8 4 1 , 7 4 9 . 5 6 9 , 7 8 4 1 5 3 , 8 4 9 1 0 7 , 6 8 0 1 8 . 3 2
2 0 . 0 0 7 . 9 4 1 2 . 0 4
1 9 8 5 1 , 7 4 1 . 8 8 0 , 2 6 7 1 5 8 , 4 7 4 1 2 7 , 4 6 6 1 9 . 4 3
2 0 . 8 7 7 . 7 6 9 . 9 3
1 9 8 6 1 , 8 0 5 . 4 9 1 , 2 7 4 1 8 7 , 1 4 8 1 2 0 , 9 1 7 2 0 . 4 2
2 1 . 6 3 6 . 4 6 8 . 3 3
1 9 8 7 1 , 6 2 0 . 5 9 4 , 0 8 2 1 9 4 , 6 5 6 1 2 3 , 2 4 7 2 0 . 6 3
2 3 . 3 7 6 . 8 5 8 . 2 1
Sources: U.S. Census; U.S. Bureau of Mines: Mineral
Commodity Summaries (1990); and Datastream.
*FOB means free on board. It is the price quoted to load a
product on board the transporting vehicle, after which the buyer
is responsible for all transportation costs.
n/a = not available

8
Exhibit 2 USG Corporation Consolidated Statement of Earnings
for years ended December 31a
($ thousands except per-share figures)
1987 1986 1985 1984 1983
Net sales $2,898,063 $2,723,664 $2,333,387 $2,318,628
$1,611,071
Cost of products sold 2,114,424 1,884,596 1,641,009 1,712,936
1,264,569
Gross profit $ 783,639 $ 839,068 $ 692,378 $ 605,692 $
346,502
Expenses and other income:
Selling and administration
expenses 344,410 310,874 251,164 239,644 185,581
Restructuring and early
retirement expenses 53,564 - - - -
Interest expense 70,257 34,850 27,804 26,475 11,117
Interest income (6,510) (6,949) (9,447) (7,947) (7,392)
Gain on offering of
subsidiary stock (43,988) - - - -
Other expense (income), net (1,854) 2,534 (3,833) (2,265)
10,152
Earnings from continuing
operations before taxes
on income $ 367,760 $ 497,759 $ 426,690 $ 349,785 $
147,044
Taxes on income 163,471 242,329 201,443 163,229 66,721

Earnings from continuing
operations 204,289 255,430 225,247 - -
Discounted operations:
Operating loss, net of taxes - (3,254) (1,450) - -
Loss on divestiture,
net of taxes - (26,668) - - -
Net earnings $ 204,289 $ 225,508 $ 223,797 $ 186,556 $
80,323
Earnings (Loss) per
common share:
Continuing operations $ 3.96 $ 4.01 $ 3.38 $
2.82 $ 1.19
Discounted operations - (0.47) (0.02) 0.12 0.01
Net $ 3.96 $ 3.54 $ 3.36 $ 2.94 $
1.20
Average # of common shares
outstanding (millions)
51.6 63.6 66.6 66.0 66.9
Closing stock price (12/31) $ 29.13 $ 37.75 $
25.31 $ 14.85 $ 14.81
Dividends per common share $ 1.12 $ 1.04 $
0.84 $ 0.70 $ 0.61
Book value per share $ 11.76 $ 11.06 $ 15.08 $
12.87 $ 10.97
Number of employees 22,200 21,700 20,100 18,000 14,000
Equity Beta b 1.37

Source: USG Corporation Annual Reports
aStatement of earnings has been restated to reflect acquisitions
and divestitures.
bThe beta was estimated using daily data from August 1987 to
May 1988.
9
Exhibit 3 USG Corporation Consolidated Balance Sheet (as of
December 31) ($ thousands, except
per-share figures)
1987 1986
Assets
Current assets:
Cash (primarily time deposits) $ 31,251 $ 92,370
Marketable securities, at cost which approximates market value
13,417 8,136
Receivables (net of reserves) 348,686 324,646
Inventories 215,943 194,574
Net assets of discontinued operations - 66,821
Total current assets $ 609,297 $ 686,547
Property, plant and equipment, net 1,190,470 1,104,691
Purchased goodwill 250,121 168,021
Other assets 44,866 46,809
Total assets $2,094,754 $2,006,068

Liabilities and Stockholder’s Equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 166,063 $ 121,222
Commercial paper and notes payable 39,049 246,688
Accrued expenses:
Payrolls 37,187 35,310
Taxes and other than taxes on income 21,639 14,872
Restructuring 47,799 -
Other 118,976 115,070
Long-term debt maturing within one year 39,020 41,496
Taxes on income 18,384 42,395
Total current liabilities $ 488,097 $ 617,053
Long-term debt 745,957 571,199
Deferred income taxes 221,700 216,600
Other obligations $ 29,167 $ 16,601
Stockholder’s Equity:
Preferred Stock 68 129
Common Stock 206,530 209,738
Capital received in excess of per value 5,410 -
Deferred currency translation (9,077) (23,263)
Reinvested earnings 406,902 398,011
Total stockholders’ equity $ 609,833 $ 584,615
Total liabilities and stockholders’ $2,094,754 $2,006,068

10
Exhibit 4 USG Corporation—Industry Segments ($ thousands)
1987 1986 1985 1984
Gypsum
Net sales $1,475,908 $1,489,537 $1,380,703 $1,139,212
Operating profit 317,428 453,592 403,761 339,983
Identifiable assets 875,732 816,605 751,568 617,392
Depreciation and depletion 47,394 45,949 42,905 35,892
Capital expenditures 93,475 118,939 90,050 58,910
Interior Systems
Net sales 576,860 479,445 212,550 148,115
Wood Fiber
Net sales 530,242 497,584 466,169 339,414
Other Products
Net sales 315,053 257,093 273,965 247,190
Operating profit 25,965 19,757 21,497 (7,312)

297-052 -11-
Exhibit 5 USG Corporation Stock Price versus S&P Indices:
January 1983 to May 1988
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Jan-83 Jul-83 Jan-84 Jul-84 Jan-85 Jul-85 Jan-86 Jul-86 Jan-87
Jul-87 Jan-88
USG Corp. S&P 500 Index S&P Building Products Index
Robert Day
becomes CEO
Belzberg's begin
buying stock Desert Partners
offers $42/share

Desert Partners
announces 9.8% stake
USG announces
proposed recap
12
Exhibit 6a Sources and Uses of Funds for USG Corporation's
Proposed Recapitalization
(In Millions)
Uses of Funds
Cash payments to holders of outstanding commons shares
$1,924.0
Junior debentures 259.8
Repayment of existing short-term and long-term debt 177.7
Cancellation of stock options 17.0
Estimated fees and expenses 71.2
Cash (increase firm’s cash balances) 10.1
Total uses $2,459.8
Sources of Funds
Term loans (bank debt) $1,600.0
Senior subordinated debentures 600.0
Junior debentures 259.8
Total sources $2,459.8

Source: USG Corporation, Prospectus dated July 7, 1988.
Exhibit 6b Schedule of Term Loan Repayments
Year
Annual Amortization
(millions)
1988 $ 100
1989 600
1990 165
1991 60
1992 155
1993 150
1994 125
1995 155
1996 90
Total $1,600
13
Exhibit 7 Projected Financial Data (in millions)
Years Ended December 31
At
Closing 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

EARNINGS STATEMENT DATA:
Net sales $2,098 $2,179 $2,335 $2,433 $2,548
Earnings before interest expense and taxes $ 312 $ 405 $
479 $ 507 $ 545
Interest expense, neta (196) (282) (276) (265) (260)
Earnings before taxes 116 123 203 242 285
Taxes on income b (49) (53) (84) (100) (116)
Minority interest, net of tax (9) (8) (8) (9) (9)
Gain on asset sales, net of taxc 56 - - - -
Net income from divested operations d 22 - - - -
Net earnings $ 136 $ 62 $ 111 $ 133 $ 160
CASH FLOW DATA:
Net earnings from continuing operations $ 80 $ 62 $ 111
$ 133 $ 160
Depreciation and amortization 84 79 74 71 72
Deferred taxes and other 25 19 23 14 17
Cash provided by continuing operations 189 160 208 218 249
Capital expenditures (104) (68) (58) (89) (121)
Proceeds from asset sales, net of tax 519 14 1 1 1
Junior debenture interest expensee 22 47 55 64 74
Unrepatriated cash of foreign subsidiaries (21) (18) (20) (22)
(22)
Other changesf 29 (5) (11) (6) (21)
Cash available to service principal
repayments $ 634 $ 130 $ 175 $ 166 $ 160
BALANCE SHEET DATA:
Net assets $ 995 $ 975 $ 967 $1,000 $1,075
Total debt: g
Senior bank debt $1,600 $1,014 $890 $724 $666 $513

Existing debt 674 608 602 593 485 478
Senior subordinated debentures 600 550 550 550 550 550
Junior debenturese 260 281 328 383 447 521
Total long-term debt $3,134 $2,453 $2,370 $2,250 $2,148
$2,062
Stockholders’ equity (deficit) ($1,567) ($1,458) ($1,395)
($1,283) ($1,148) $ (987)
aNet of interest income. The average interest rates on the
Credit Facility, Senior Subordinated Debentures,
Junior Debentures, and existing debt retained are assumed to be
10.50%, 14.00%, 16.00%, and 8.25%.
bAssuming a statutory U.S. Federal income tax rate of 34%, a
state income tax rate of 6.5%, and a Canadian
income tax rate of 42%.
cManagement estimates a net after-tax gain on businesses and
asset sales of approximately $56m in 1988.
dNet income from divested operations reflects the contribution
to net earnings by exited businesses until the
point of divestiture.
eReflects the issuance of additional Junior Debentures resulting
from pay-in-kind (non-cash) interest incurred
on previously issued Junior Debentures.
fOther charges includes primarily changes in net working
capital.
gIncludes the currently maturing portion of long-term debt in
each year.

14
Exhibit 8a Recent Acquisition Announcements in the Building
Products Industry
Acquirer Target
Announcement
Date
Target
Sales
(millions)
Offer Price
to Book
Value
Offer Price
to Earnings
per Share
Saint-Gobain Wolverine Aluminum 4/11/88 $ 111 2.9 13.2
Saint-Gobain Certainteed Corp. 2/26/88 $1,160 1.8 12.8
Southdown Inc. Moore McCormack 2/23/88 $ 334 1.2 13.4
Florida Rock Arundel Corp. 11/24/87 $ 82 1.9 11.6
Kohlberg, Kravis Jim Walter Corp. 7/17/87 $1,720 1.4 12.8
Weyerhauser Timberland Ind. 7/9/87 $ 52 1.4 12.7
Source: Grimm’s Mergerstat Review, M&A Sourcebook,
casewriter estimates.

Note: Sales are for the latest four quarters; earnings per share
are estimates for the current year; and book
values are from the last quarter before the announcement.
Exhibit 8b Trading Multiples for Building Products Companies
as of March 31, 1988
Company
Stock
Price
Sales
(millions)
Debt to
Total Capital
Ratio
Market Price
to Book
Value
Market Price
to Earnings
per Share
USG Corporation $38.13 $2,920 57% 3.1 12.4
Ameron International $31.63 $ 316 19% 1.0 12.2
Armstrong World Ind. $34.25 $2,453 17% 1.8 10.2
Butler Manufacturing $32.50 $ 635 22% 1.3 15.7
Florida Rock Industries $27.63 $ 323 43% 2.0 13.1
Masco Corp. $26.38 $2,282 41% 2.5 11.6
Ply-Gem Industries $13.88 $ 332 45% 1.7 11.6
Southdown, Inc. $41.50 $ 339 48% 1.4 10.4

Source: Compustat
Note: Sales and earnings per share are for the latest four
quarter. Debt to total capital ratios and book values
are from March 31, 1988.
15
Exhibit 9 Selected Financial Market Data
June 24, 1988
Yields on U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds
1 month 6.50%
6 month 6.78
1 - year 7.53
2 - year 8.08
5 - year 8.52
10 - year 8.94
30 - year 8.98
Yields on Long-term Corporate Bonds
Aaa 9.79%
Aa 10.08
A 10.37
Baa 10.97
Interest Rates
3 month LIBOR 7.88%
6 month LIBOR 8.00
3 month CD 7.55
Prime Rate 9.00

Source: Federal Reserve Bulletin
Sheet: Exhibit 7
Sheet: Sheet2
Sheet: Sheet3
Exhibit 7: Projected Financial Data (in millions)
Years Ended December 31
At
Closing
EARNINGS STATEMENT DATA
Net Sales
Earnings before interest expense and taxes
Interest expense, net
Earnings before taxes
116.0
123.0
203.0
242.0
285.0
Taxes on income
Minority interest, net of tax
Gain on asset sales, net of tax
Net income from diversified operations
Net Earnings
136.0
62.0
111.0
133.0
160.0
CASH FLOW DATA
Net earnings from continuous operations
Depreciation and amortization
Deferred taxes and other

Cash provided by continuous operations
189.0
160.0
208.0
218.0
249.0
Capital Expenditures
Proceeds from asset sales, net of tax
Junior debenture interest expense
Unrepatriated cash of foreign subsidiaries
Other changes
Cash available to service principal repayments
634.0
130.0
175.0
166.0
160.0
BALANCE SHEET DATA
Net Assets
Total Debt
Senior bank Debt
Existing Debt
Senior subordinated debentures
Junior debentures
Total long-term debt
3134.0
2453.0
2370.0
2250.0
2148.0
2062.0
Stockholder's equity (deficit)
-1567.0
-1458.0
-1395.0
-1283.0

-1148.0
-987.0
New York University
Stern School of Business
Advanced Corporate Finance
Tony Marciano
Fall 2017
Final Exam Assignment
For the Final Exam, I will expect you to analyze the attached
USG case. In your analysis, you should address the following
questions:
1) Review USG’s business, it’s past performance, and the
outlook for the future. Why is USG the target of a hostile
takeover?
2) Value USG under its current operating and financial
strategies. How does your valuation compare to the current
market price? Value USG under the proposed recapitalization
plan.

3) How should Day respond to Desert Partners’ tender offer? Is
the proposed recapitalization the best response? As Desert
Partners, how would you respond to the proposed
recapitalization plan?
Rules:
• Address the questions above in a memorandum.
• YOUR PAPER MUST BE INDIVIDUAL.
• They are due to me by email or hard copy by 4PM on
Thursday, Dec 19st. (There will be a box by Michael Jules –
course assistant by KMC9-87.)
Notes:
• Your paper must be individual
• At most 8 pages of text (and no less than 3 pages)--double
spaced with 10-12 pitch.
• Calculations and Exhibits can be attached as Exhibits.
• Put name on cover page only (I grade them blind).
• Your memo should follow the same format as discussed for
the previous memos

• Except I expect much more detail and breadth here.
• Please describe your assumptions.
• Your paper should address the issues raised in an integrated
essay.
• I am looking for good arguments and logical descriptions.
• GOOD LUCK !!!!
Please read this ………………..
Hi,
Here is one Assignment in Corporate Finance subject area
which includes Financial Analysis and Report writing. The case
is about hostile takeover and it also includes Valuation,
Financial Ratios, Share Price, Capitalization and
recapitalization, WACC, Debt-Equity mix etc. This is an MBA
course assignment from a well known University of world class
therefore the level of work and quality should be like that.
The attached PDF file has Case study.
The attached word file has Case instructions and questions
which needs to be addressed.
The attached excel file has some of the data from case study and
you will get complete financial data from PDF case itself.

Important Note: The Report should be about 7-8 pages double
spaced and it should have relevant Financial analysis. The
tables and calculations can be put in exhibits. The assumptions
you make while analysis must be described and stated properly
in the report. Paper must address the issues raised in the case
and your answers must be argumentative and logical covering
the material studied in the class such as Valuation, Financial
Ratios, Share Price, Capitalization and recapitalization, WACC,
Debt-Equity mix .
Please reply back and let me know if you can help on this one
and confident enough to get high quality job on it .
Title: (I have three options to make my title and I want my
research proposal to be about middle schoolers or high
schoolers and how does their parents income affect their
academic success.. Something like that) I just don’t know how
to word it.)Example of my proposal titles: 1. The effects of
parental involvement on children's’ academic success
2. the economic impact of a college degree on young adults
3.The impact of____ on elementary school performance
on…
[Make sure this is not the hypothesis. Generally not a complete
sentence]
Principal Investigator [Use the name “Farhea”..]
I.Introduction
ll. Literature Review
III. Method
A.Participants ( who participated in the study)
B.Instrumentation (how are we going to measure your variables)

C.Procedures (what methods are you using)
IV. Analysis
V.Discussion
VI References Cited
Abstract
[This is a one to two paragraph summary of the whole proposal.
Not an introduction!]Introduction
[This is the first 1-2 paragraphs and should establish why the
topic is interesting and important. Define key terms.
What method (such as survey, content analysis, qualitative
interviewing) will be used ]
II. Literature Review
[What are the most important sources on this topic?
Ex(These are the primary findings that are based on my
topic….. Ex. they looked at these indicators but not these which
will i provide..)
What are the main past findings, debates or theories on this
topic and how do they relate to the research being proposed?
Purpose of the proposed study
Hypothesis or guiding research questions.]III.
MethodA.Participants[
Who or what (such as in content analysis) is going to be
studied? Ex. - Populations
How are they going to be selected?
How many?] how many elements? B.Instrumentation
[How will the variables be measured? ] Ex.-( what dimension
am i looking at and how i create indicators? Ex- Im looking at
the gpa or looking at sat or grades of students ...C.Procedures
[How will the data collection be carried out? Ex- Interviewing,
sampling… blah blah
Are there any ethical issues, and if so how are the to be
addressed?] (Some possibilities are simple random sample,
systematic sample, cluster sample, quota sample, chain referral
(snowball sample), and judgement sample.) Justify this choice
with a quote from Schutt and/or Patten.PART 4IV. Analysis

[What kind of data analysis will be done? For example will
there be tables and graphs? Will it be a qualitative analysis
looking for patterns and themes? ] V.Discussion
[Limitations of this proposed research (Ex- MY SAMPLE IS 20
STUDENTS AND i can't generalize about the populations..
What are we able to do and what we are not able to do..
Implications of the potential results) why should this be funded
and why should this research be done..
VI References Cited
Only 2 sources allowed. One scholar reviewed and one peer
reviewed

Effectiveness of Bilingual EducationBret HartProfessor Tanesha.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Effectiveness of Bilingual EducationBret HartProfessor Tanesha.docx

Similar to Effectiveness of Bilingual EducationBret HartProfessor Tanesha.docx (20)

More from SALU18

More from SALU18 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Effectiveness of Bilingual EducationBret HartProfessor Tanesha.docx